Sex with a minor: Some more equal than others?

(Or “Is there a class distinction when it comes to sex with a minor?” Or “One sex law for the educated & well-off, another for ‘lesser mortals’?”

Prior to 48Gate, a number of people have been prosecuted and found guilty of having paid a minor to have sex with them. The “defence” of “didn’t know” didn’t work: there was a case reported in the media last week that did not get anyone upset at the failure of this “defence”. And neither did the “defence of “she’s a prostitute”: men were jailed for having sex with underaged Vietnamese prostitutes. No-one was saying it was unfair. All the men charged and found guilty were ‘lesser mortals”: no lawyers, financial professionals, senior civil servants or managers, or scholars. Juz labourers, hawkers technicians and junior white-collar workers.

The chattering classes and netizens ignored the cases.

But once “elites” are involved, the chattering classes and netizens rushed to defend them against the system. What an irony: the “elites” need to be protected against the unfairness and stupidity of the law. Presumably, the lesser mortals had accept the system.

The self-styled “Voice of the People”(err “Voice of the Elites”?) , Tan Kin Lian, has compared having sex unknowingly with a minor to baking a cake without knowing that some of the ingredients are dangerous. Well I never. And there are on his site posts from one or more of the accused: home away from home for the accused? Maybe TKL should borrow TOC’s unofficial motto of “Giving Voice to the Voiceless”**. I mean if anyone is voiceless, it is the now 46 accused and the two who pleaded guilty.

TKL, the posts, and others argue that the consequences for the accused whether they are found guilty or not, is disproportionate to what they are alleged to have done. And hence the Attorney-General should not prosecute them given that the minor in question is a “hardcore” prostitute, or so a lawyer for some of the accused claims (But he would say that wouldn’t he?). On disproportionate consequences, I agree. But why didn’t these bleeding hearts, do-gooders argue this when some men were charged with having sex with FT minors who happened to be prostitutes?

On not prosecuting, somewhere here, I’ve said if in the AG’s view there is sufficient evidence to convict, the AG has to prosecute: to show the system is fair to everyone***. And see this****, which I came across in a comment to a post by Lucky Tan. I agree with the anonymous commenter.

The nine weeks the ex-principal got, and the judge’s explanation of the sentence and the rationale of the law should dismay the accused (including this utterly self-centred chap, who for his self-centredness and self-pity, both beyond parody, deserves getting the maximum jail sentence of seven years and a big, big fine to boot*) and their champion.

While Senior District Judge See Kee Oon noted that Lee chose to plead guilty at the first available opportunity [so if plead not guilty, then found guilty, be afraid very afraid] and showed clear and unequivocal remorse {go for acting classes, and practice crying in front of the mirror], Lee had allowed himself to be misled regarding the girl’s age. Given the circumstances, Lee’s suspicion ought to have been aroused and he should have asked for proof of her age, the judge said. “Had she refused to show identification, he should have walked away,” the judge added. From Today report.

Also, he had “consciously chosen to procure services under anonymity of the Internet”, said the judge.

In passing sentence, the judge stressed the need to “reinforce a message of deterrence”. The judge highlighted the girl’s age and stressed that the law was put in place to protect the young and vulnerable … lacked maturity and was entitled to legal protection … Any “presumed willingness” on her part had no mitigating value.

According to a ST report the said judge also said that the law regards the underage prostitute as the victim because she is underage and therefore deemed as incapable of having the capacity for mature judgement and discernment of an adult … “What the victim had done may be considered immoral by certain standards. However, this must be weighed against the morality of those whose demand for such services makes this a lucrative trade.”

Spot on I say.

But let’s not condemn the ex-principal. The judge said he committed the offence outside the scope of duties as an educator and did not abuse or exploit his position.

I wish him and his wife well. Because “There but for the grace of God goes I”.

————-

*”It is my personal lack of control of my own moral standards and my weak resistance to distractions that led me to my mistake,” the ex-principal stated. The self-pitying moaner should reflect on this.

**And TOC’s silence on this mater is deafening. Next time it covers shumething controversial and says it is doing so because the issue is widely reported and because it is in the public interest (like the NS status of Tony Tan’s sons), I’ll raise this silence of TOC on MinorGate.

***The silence of the wimmin and feminist groups is also deafening. They should be commending the AG and police loudly. Perhaps, they only ever want to criticise the police and AG?

****Because there are elites among these 48 of them, including a former primary school principal, a former secondary school teacher, former high ranking financial executives and wealthy individuals, peoples get excited and interested about the fairness of the case.

Does this mean that ordinary peoples should get harsher punishment than the elites and the riches for committing the same offence?

Does this mean that ordinary peoples have no careers, no life when compared to the riches and the elites?

This shows that the society has to grow up to treat everyone, whether you are ordinary, poor, rich or elite, fairly with the same respect and same expectation.

Well said Sir or Mam.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

I don’t think it is fair to make an innuendo as to the motivation of those who spoke against the crucifying of the 48Gates. People did not speak up earlier not because those convicted earlier were not elites. People speak up now because they find that this law is getting out of hand and that far too many people are being charged for an innocuous, albeit immoral, mistake.

PS: in case you are wondering, i am not related to any of the 48Gates and I am definitely in the lower strata of this society if there is such a system.

IS THE RULES OF LAWS, THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUAL BE THEY RICH OR POOR, BE IT KING OR BEGGER OR IS IT DIFFERENT BEHIND THE THE DOORS OF THE RULES OF LAW. THEN THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY HAVE TO BE SERIOUSLY REVIEWED

First I am not defending sex with minors. However, having sex with a 16 year old is legal under the current law as long as no money changes hand. Yet having sex with a 17 year old with money changing hand is illegal. So what is the AGE that the law considers MINOR?

Nothing is black and white in life. Cases like these should be tried in front of a jury and let the people decide. A jury can weigh all the facts and come up with a just verdict.